MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416723041 · doi:10.1155/ijod/4344848

Prevalence and Clinico‐Pathologic Profiles of Nonodontogenic Cysts of the Oral and Maxillofacial Region: A Multicentre Study

2025· article· en· W4416723041 on OpenAlexaff
Soranun Chantarangsu, Promphakkon Kulthanaamondhita, Kittipong Dhanuthai, Kraisorn Sappayatosok, Poramaporn Klanrit, Nutchapon Chamusri, Pouyan Aminishakib, S M Sadr Hosseini, RB Sudagar Singh, Mark Darling

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dentistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisPopulationDifferential diagnosisMEDLINEEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To determine the prevalences, demographic, and pathologic profiles of patients diagnosed with nonodontogenic cysts (NOCs) in the oral and maxillofacial regions. Materials and Methods: Biopsy records from the participating institutions from 2000 to 2024 were studied for lesions diagnosed in the NOC category. Demographic profiles, the locations, and pathologic diagnoses were collected. Data were analyzed by using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29.0. Results: A total of 183,132 cases were obtained and 1864 cases (1.02%) were diagnosed as NOCs. The age of the patient ranged from 1 to 96 years with mean ± SD = 49.03 ± 18.43 years. The overall male-to-female ratio was 1.08:1. The majority of the lesions were encountered in the soft tissue. The most prevalent NOC was nasopalatine duct cyst followed by mucus retention cysts and nasolabial cysts. Conclusions: This study is the largest study on NOCs from Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North America. The frequency of NOCs found in this studied population is somewhat different from those reported in previous studies. This study offers a valuable database for clinicians to facilitate the clinical differential diagnoses along with for the pathologists in rendering the final diagnosis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of DentistrySame topicOral and Maxillofacial PathologyFrench-language works237,207